242 REVIEW OF TETRAODONTID^. 



Tetraodon faJiaM, tbe Tetraodon lineatus of the Systema Katuras, and a 

 member of the group called Arothron. 



If this work of nassehjuist be taken in consideration, the name 

 Tetraodon must be assigned to the present group. 



But the conventional starting ijoint of binomial nomenclature is later, 

 and in the Systema Naturae, Linmeus includes all the species of the 

 present family known to him, in the genus Tetraodon. 



We must then consider the later attempts at restriction of the group. 



In 1839, Swainson made the first attempt at generic division. 



Eetaining the name Tetrodon for the bulk of the species (including 

 our genera Sphwroides and Tetraodon), he separated from it Lagoeeplia- 

 lus, Leiodon (or Leisomus), Cirrhisomus., and Canthigaster (or Psilonotus). 



The first and last of these were well defined. The others, Leiodou 

 (based on the absence of prickles) and Cirrhisomus (based on the jires 

 euce of cirri), rest on characters of no systematic imi)ortance. Under 

 the generic name of Tetrodon, four species are mentioned as ty])es. 

 Three of these belong to the Arothron group ; the other is a Chelono- 

 don. But none of them are Linnteau species, alth<3ugh one of them 

 [testudineus Bloch, not L.) was sujiposed by Swainson to be such, if 

 we regard, with Dr. Gill, this subdivision to be properly a restriction 

 of the Linnaean genus, the name Tetraodon would again be synonymous 

 with Arothron. But it may be objected that the Tetrodon of Swainson 

 (lontaiued no species known to Linmeus, and hence its composition 

 ..•annot be considered as a proper restriction. This objection seems to 

 us a valid one. 



The next subdivision seems to be that of Miiller (1841), who retained 

 the name of Tetrodon foi'none of his divisions. 



Xext (1855) we have the subdivision of Bibron.* By him the group 

 was divided into a large number of genera, part of them without defi- 

 nition and all of them with French names only. For one of his sections 

 the name Tetraodon was retained. This group, as arranged by Bibron, 

 included a single Linuaean species as type. This one, lineatus, is a 

 member of the group called by Miiller, Arothron. This seems to be 

 the first ])roper restriction of Tetrodon, and, so far as we can see, it 

 must stand, making Tetraodon the equivalent of Arothron. 



*We are indebted to Dr. E. J. Nolan, of Philadelphia, for the following list of 

 the nominal genera of Bibron and their constituent species: 

 Promecocepliales Bib. T. argentatus, Lac. ; Innaris Schn., spadicens Richards, la;\'iga- 



tus, Lin., lagocephalns BIocli, non Liu. (I'esp^ce d(5crite par ce dernier est nn 



Rhyncote Bib.), incrniis Schlegel ; (diagnosis given). 

 Stcno)iufope8 Bib. D. testudineus, Lin., Speugleri Bloch, Plumieri Lacdp., marmora- 



tus Lowe, angusticeps Jenyus, la^vissimus Bil)., Kieueri Bib., binummulaius 



Bib., Bernieri Bib., subflavus Bib., Pleei Bib. (no diagnosis). 

 D'dohomyc'ere Bib. T. reticularis Schn., hispidus Bloch, niaculatus Lacop., uieleagris 



Lac, nigro-punctar-us Schn., niappa. Les., diadeuiatus Riipp., longicauda Bib., 



.sordidus Riipp., immaculatus Lacep., Rupelli Bib. (diagnosis given). 

 Tetraodon Bib. T. lineatus Lin., patoca Hani. (Buchanan), dorsounicolor Bib., Bou- 



rouensis Bib. (diagnosis given). 



